A classic ad hominem. I have no respect for the UN as it is currently comprised. They want to disarm the world so we will all be at the mercy of any terrorist government that comes along. That is just like the gun control nuts on the American left.
Nevertheless, I like that one provision of the charter. I fits with my moral view of what is right and wrong. One does not initiate force, start a fight, strike the first blow without a truly IMMINENT threat. If it is hard to get a force resolution through the Security Council, that is good. I really believe what Bush and company said but did not mean. War must absolutely be the LAST resort to resolve any problem and every obstacle to war is good.
If your memory recorders were on during the first quarter of 2003, you saw clearly that Bush was determined to have a war and nothing was going to stop him. There was no possibility of a peaceful settlement.
Nevertheless, I like that one provision of the charter. I fits with my moral view of what is right and wrong.
So you will pick and choose what provisions you obey? Wow, THAT is convenient.
The fact remains, we as a country do not owe allegiance to the UN, and we do not, under any current law, have to cede our independence to that organization.
Iraq violated the cease-fire, hence our actions were legal. You may argue they were ill-advised, rash, "unilateral", poorly motivated, or whatever else you can manufacture in you conspiracy-filled mind. But it is inaccurate to say it was illegal.